- Get Involved
- Understanding CCS
- About the Institute
Appendix F - Public Engagement Quality Factors
Understanding the community
The first quality question tested projects’ progress towards understanding their local communities through research and data collection. It asked to what extent the data acquired about the impacted local communities was sufficient to evaluate project public engagement risk. Projects indicating the first stage of this work was finalised should understand:
- the unique circumstances of the local communities, for example, the historical productivity or otherwise of relationships between industrial scale constructors, governments and the local community;
- who the local influencers were, how they were connected and what concerned them;
- the local reputation and levels of trust in the project proponents; and
- the extent to which the proponents planned to work in collaboration with local individuals and groups.
Data interpretation and planning
The second question testing quality examined how community consultation had impacted project planning. It asked to what extent consultation activities with impacted local communities was sufficient to anticipate and mitigate public engagement risk. Success indicators for a ‘finalised’ self-assessment indicated that the project had:
- set targets to improve their local reputation and trust;
- incorporated public engagement into project risk, resource allocation and crisis response planning;
- appointed appropriately skilled people resources as the project’s link with the local community and to prepare a public engagement strategy; and
- established a variety of channels of interaction for information exchange between the community and project proponents.
Activities to mitigate risks
The third quality question tested the implementation of mitigation activities related to the identified risks. It asked to what extent projects’ mitigation activities with impacted local communities was sufficient to offset public engagement risk. Projects responding they had finalised this activity should have:
- established a system to record stakeholder interactions and monitor/manage issues;
- a process in place to regularly assess the project’s reputation (brand awareness and trust) with the local community
- put landowner permitting agreements in place, along with a quality and service promise to meet landowner expectations;
- continued implementation of the public engagement strategy with assigned budget and local people involved actively in discussions;
- established a local presence/shopfront; and
- established a community investment plan based on preserving and enhancing the local community’s uniqueness.
Ongoing monitoring and analysis
The final quality question tested the ongoing monitoring and analysis of operational activities. It asked to what extent ongoing operational activities with impacted local communities were sufficient to manage public engagement risk. Responses of ‘finalised’ indicate that:
- reputation performance continues to be assessed regularly; and
- the stakeholder interaction system/database to monitor and manage operational and construction issues is kept up-to-date. The public engagement strategy, including the community investment plan, is regularly reviewed and revised.